Let's just take it for granted that as a competitive game with multiple expansion develops it will have a meta of some kind. Some ships, upgrades or strategies are going to become more common than others and some ships, upgrades or strategies will be less common. New expansions may or may not shake things up, but they only will shake things up much if they can create a new "best" options for play.

Let me suggest a couple of things that I think a good meta would have. A wide meta. For example Flotillas are everywhere, but very few fleets are only made up of flotillas and those other parts are pretty varied. Same is true for Yavaris (at least where I play) but Yavaris is a whole fleet, and what people use to fill in the rest of their points is pretty varied. Something else you would like to see is a wide second tier, and hopefully close to the top tier in effectiveness. I have found that second best isn't chosen much more than options that are legitimately bad. Take the Defensive retrofit upgrade. I take ECMs almost always, it is one of them first upgrades I put on my ISDs. But there are other good upgrades for that slot, but I never take them because I am taking ECMs.

Additionally, player skill being equal (if such a thing can exist) you would expect a meta list to beat a non-meta list. But how much better of a player do you have to be in order to beat a first tier meta list with a list that is second tier. I think in a healthy meta player skill should be able to beat list.

This one is pretty obvious but we want our meta to play like a game of Rock/Paper/Scisors. Anti-fighter squadron lists beat bomber lists, minimal squadrons beat anti-fighter heavy lists. Bomber lists beat minimal fighter lists. This is an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Finnally I think I would like a game complicated enough that what everyone is playing (or assume is the best) may not actually be the best. Sure there are some really really good list builders out there. And they are often the ones that define the meta. But in a game that is complex (like Armada) can you ever really be sure you have found what is best.

So what do you all think. What differentiates a healthy meta from an unhealthy meta, given the assumption that there will be a meta?

Does a healthy meta have to reward the use of the more iconic ships? Does a healthy meta have to reward play styles that are just more fun? I am not sure about those, but I am interested in hearing everyone else's opinion.

Game doesn't revolve around a wonky turn based system (cough, activations). Many ships are good for many ship reasons. Not for activation padding.

Large ships and medium ships have reasons to have guns. og mh yods, have you seen the posts insinuating that ISDs and Home One doesn't even have guns??? AUGH.

134 squadrons is viable. 0 squadrons is viable (and not due to cheese). Squadron and ship gunline damage are in line, and not crazily overly efficiently accurate with 2BCC and Toryn.

... There are reasons to take VSDs and Interdictors. There aren't right now.

Welcome to Armada, 6 activations, 1 demo, 1 Quasar with 134 Defenders or bombers plus 4 gozantis.
7 activations Ram or MSU.
5 activations, Yavaris, Gallant Haven, Rieekan 3 floittlas with 2 BCC and Toryn. Cool. Im out. That's no fun.

i think "healthy meta" is a subjective term. my go at it:

1. 134 squadrons is viable. 60 squadrons is viable. 0 squadrons is not viable(i know some people will hate me for this; i just think 0-squadrons space combat is not "star wars") added: it is my belief that this applies to armada and that 100+ squadrons is not a must-have(though, to be fair, other solutions such as flechette raiders have to be included for lower squadron counts to work).

2. NO SINGLE SHIP, none at all, is mandatory for a faction. this includes flotillas. UNLESS more flotillas are designed(i.e. flotillas that still do activation padding but help ships more than squadrons, or at least SOMETHING to give variety to fleets on the table)

3. fleets should be encouraged to use as many DIFFERENT SHIP SIZES as possible. like, 1-2 large/medium ships, escorted by smaller ones. like my previous point; a healthy meta is all about variety. "spam lists" of "all-small ships" and/or "all-large ships" are dissociative, "game-y".

26 minutes ago, Kikaze said:

i think "healthy meta" is a subjective term. my go at it:

1. 134 squadrons is viable. 60 squadrons is viable. 0 squadrons is not viable(i know some people will hate me for this; i just think 0-squadrons space combat is not "star wars") added: it is my belief that this applies to armada and that 100+ squadrons is not a must-have(though, to be fair, other solutions such as flechette raiders have to be included for lower squadron counts to work).

2. NO SINGLE SHIP, none at all, is mandatory for a faction. this includes flotillas. UNLESS more flotillas are designed(i.e. flotillas that still do activation padding but help ships more than squadrons, or at least SOMETHING to give variety to fleets on the table)

3. fleets should be encouraged to use as many DIFFERENT SHIP SIZES as possible. like, 1-2 large/medium ships, escorted by smaller ones. like my previous point; a healthy meta is all about variety. "spam lists" of "all-small ships" and/or "all-large ships" are dissociative, "game-y".

Indeed. I would go further and say that a 'healthy meta' is NO META. Every ship works, every ship is taken. Every squad is taken. No fleets archetypes are considered 'top'. Obviously ships/squads being weak to other ship/squads - that's just game balance, and if you make a fleet of only type A, which is vulnerable to type B, and end up fighting type B, then I think you should be soundly crushed with barely any hope of winning. But I don't think that says anything other than 'Well duh.' If you have a dagger, and go against a knight, you're gonna die. . .

So while not every ship/squad is guaranteed to have an even fight against any ship/squad, I think every fleet, unless it runs into its 'counter' as shown above, should have at least a 50-50 chance of winning any engagement (subject to player skill, of course).

31 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Indeed. I would go further and say that a 'healthy meta' is NO META. Every ship works, every ship is taken. Every squad is taken. No fleets archetypes are considered 'top'. Obviously ships/squads being weak to other ship/squads - that's just game balance, and if you make a fleet of only type A, which is vulnerable to type B, and end up fighting type B, then I think you should be soundly crushed with barely any hope of winning. But I don't think that says anything other than 'Well duh.' If you have a dagger, and go against a knight, you're gonna die. . .

So while not every ship/squad is guaranteed to have an even fight against any ship/squad, I think every fleet, unless it runs into its 'counter' as shown above, should have at least a 50-50 chance of winning any engagement (subject to player skill, of course).

i agree on what is a "perfect meta". but there is a "less perfect meta" that could be healthy.

example: its ok if 80% of tournament lists have a flotilla. it is not good, shows the ship is too good for its point, but ok. totaly workable. it is not OK for 95%(=basicaly 100% except for some people that didnt take a flotilla out of protest or whatever) of lists to have a flotilla and 60%+ of lists to have 2+ flotillas. ESPECIALY if each faction has only one flotilla, so no diversity.

1 minute ago, Kikaze said:

i agree on what is a "perfect meta". but there is a "less perfect meta" that could be healthy.

example: its ok if 80% of tournament lists have a flotilla. it is not good, shows the ship is too good for its point, but ok. totaly workable. it is not OK for 95%(=basicaly 100% except for some people that didnt take a flotilla out of protest or whatever) of lists to have a flotilla and 60%+ of lists to have 2+ flotillas. ESPECIALY if each faction has only one flotilla, so no diversity.

I'd like this, but I'm out of likes. I would add though that if those flotillas have purpose other than padding (like slicer tools, repair crews) that is central to the strategy of the fleet as a whole, it would be acceptable, even if the entire fleet is flotillas (like Tokras), unless it was the standard. If 1/100 fleets have 3 flotillas, say, then that's not bad. So 100% having a flotilla isn't too bad. It depends on how you use the flotillas. . .

the only healthy meta is no meta.

edit: no need to be obtuse and tell me that there always will be a meta. I know that. But, in the end, having no strong meta where anything is viable is the best scenario for any game whatsoever.

A healthy meta, to me, is one where despite competitiveness, everyone has honest to God fun. Meaning at the store level, maybe even regional level. I know min/max will be a large factor at Nationals and Worlds, where the big stakes are. Play what you like, repeatedly, in casual and competitive. Make adjustments to fix what doesn't work and improve what does. Before you know it, you're not only having fun with those twin ISDs, you're lethal with them because you know every in and out of them.

Thats the biggest problem I see with people in Armada and X-Wing. The new net list hits and everyone scrambles to use or hard counter it, often discarding a fleet they may have used for some time. The net lists are big winners for the reason I mentioned above. They've used them for so long that they've refined a concept into a working, effective model.

My hopes are that:

a) a balanced fleet (some squads, a large ship, 2-4 small ships) would be competitive at a local & regional level

b) fleets that deviate from this to a reasonable degree would still be competitive at those levels. (2 heavies & 1-2 smalls or high squads or no heavies or low squads) Deviation in each direction (Squad, Large, Small) should be roughly equally effective.

c) Maneuver matters. Where I position my ships has a measurable effect on the damage I do, and the damage I take. Ideally, there would be no perfect choices, so if I fly offensively, I'm going to take damage.

d) There is more than one solution for any problem. Large ships can be beaten by large ships or by an anti-ship focused squad wing. Squadrons can be beaten by squadrons or by anti-squad-focused ships. (probably mainly small ships, but H9-Warlord-Ruthless Strategists did a number on me last week, and that's a good thing.)

e) Different tools support & synergize with each other. Small ships should have tools to help large ships (Hand of Justice) and vice versa (Home One). Anti-squad ships with fighters do better than the same number of points spent on anti-squad ships or fighters alone.

f) Specialization matters. If I build a bomber wing, it should lose against a smaller number of anti-squad fighters. (Tie bombers vs X-wings) if a ship is dedicated to fighting squadrons, it is less effective at fighting ships.

g) Iconic ships matter. ISDs are over-represented in Imperial fleets, with roughly twice as many points spent on them as the next ship class. That's good. ISDs are a big visual draw, and I never want them to go obsolete. Rebels are much more balanced, with most of their ship classes having similar points spent. That's also good. X-wings are very capable starfighters, and appear often. That's good. If iconic ships go obsolete, I'd like them updated to remain relevant. Issue ISD-Tector or ISD-III ship cards, or T-70 X-wing squadron cards. (you'd probably have to make T-65 X-wing & T-70 x-wing dial bases distinctive, in case people mixed the two in their fleet).

h) (lower priority) fleets that deviate from average would still be competitive. (3 heavies & no squads (Motti all meat), no heavies & no squads (DeMSU), or Max Squads + only squad support ships (Rieekan Aces+Gallant Haven)) Ideally, they would all be competitive, but if the only way to balance the 3 main archetypes is to disadvantage them all when taken to the maximum, I'm OK with that.

question:

is this about wishlisting on what would be perfect? because some people have hopes that, while i agree with them, are just that-hopes. there never was, nor will there ever be, a truly balanced wargame. a "healthy meta" is nothing more than "a meta that fits our standards so that competitive lists are more fun and diverse". you know- a step forward.

if i was a game designer and read this thread, i wouldnt be taking some people seriously; i'm not insulting you guys, i agree with you on ideal stuff, you are RIGHT, but are asking for things that cannot be done. as a community, we should set realistic expctations for the game. asking for "perfection" is easy, but it is not constructive criticism imho.

lastly...

while i am not some super armada expert, i have played tons of wargames and RPGs. from my experience the only way to build a healthy competitive meta is to assume every player will minmax like crazy and impose restrictions on that.

(you dont need to worry about casual players they will just houserule. a game with healthy top-end competition draws casual players, they'll just follow the commotion if they like the models; on the contrary, a game designed to be casual usualy ends up being niche)

A healthy meta is up to the players.

It is the player's responsibility to play a Star Wars game as close to the source material as possible. He or she should want to play varied lists that are strategically planned out to have a decent chance of achieving victory.

Ackbar was on the bridge of Home One, not a GR75.

The Rebels didn't win at Endor with an MSU.

Both sides used fighters.

Demolisher, Yavaris, and the fighter aces did not participate in every battle together.

Tarkin and Biggs are dead

Well, if you design Magic The Gathering, healthy meta is 20% of cards being viable at the highest levels of competitive play. In a miniatures game, I would say 80% of units need to be competitive and a similar % of cards.

Mom annabstarct level, a meta that is difficult to define is a healthy meta

6 hours ago, Kikaze said:

question:

is this about wishlisting on what would be perfect? because some people have hopes that, while i agree with them, are just that-hopes. there never was, nor will there ever be, a truly balanced wargame. a "healthy meta" is nothing more than "a meta that fits our standards so that competitive lists are more fun and diverse". you know- a step forward.

if i was a game designer and read this thread, i wouldnt be taking some people seriously; i'm not insulting you guys, i agree with you on ideal stuff, you are RIGHT, but are asking for things that cannot be done. as a community, we should set realistic expctations for the game. asking for "perfection" is easy, but it is not constructive criticism imho.

lastly...

while i am not some super armada expert, i have played tons of wargames and RPGs. from my experience the only way to build a healthy competitive meta is to assume every player will minmax like crazy and impose restrictions on that.

(you dont need to worry about casual players they will just houserule. a game with healthy top-end competition draws casual players, they'll just follow the commotion if they like the models; on the contrary, a game designed to be casual usualy ends up being niche)

This is the most honest & realistic assessment of competitive play to date. It is also the most important post for FFG to take under consideration if it is not already their mindset. If the community as a whole doesn't see more than one or two options for min maxing, then you get the negativity we have all recently seen here. I'm still not convinced that it is the game rather than the perception that needs to be changed, but one of the two definitely needs some attention from FFG.

Healthy meta is me winning every tournament regardless of what list I take.

4 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Healthy meta is me winning every tournament regardless of what list I take.

This is fair and i support a similar plan, so long as i can have the exact same thing over in my store. I pray we don't meet in a tournament, though, as then we have to figure out who gets precedence in the winning.

Attempting to be realistic rather than idealistic:

1: Not every card needs to be viable. That kind of balance just isn't possible in a game this complicated.

2: Not every squadron needs to be viable, but I would suggest the iconic ones do need to be. If X-Wings, Y-Wings, and TIE fighters are not a common sight, something is wrong. If nobody uses the YV-666 other than Bossk, I am less concerned.

3: Every ship should be viable. Not necessarily every configuration of every ship, but the larger models should be used. By viable, I mean not totally irregular as a sight in the top of mid-major to major tournaments. To give some examples of ships I do not currently think meet this criteria: the Interdictor, the Pelta, and the Victory.

4: No massive over-representation. If 15/16 top fleets across worlds and the EU championship take 2+ flotillas and most are taking 3+, something is very wrong. Similarly, if 15/16 top fleets were two ISD plus other stuff I would say there was an equally bad problem.

5: No "win button" cards. If you never see a ship fielded without a title or if untitled versions are only the 2nd and 3rd of that ship (looking at you guys, Demo, Yavaris, and Admonition), that's bad. If one commander or squadron dominates the top tables, that's bad.

So for me, what I am asking for is not a huge amount of macro-level sameness, that at least the ships show up in a decent variety. I would be fine with FFG straight up errata-ing cards after each worlds season and having a pack of new cards, for instance, because again (to be realistic) this is complicated and will have to be an iterative project.

What I do not want is counter cards to the current hot stuff that just leads to band aids piled on band aids on a severed head and a constantly broken meta that has one dominant solution each season.

Does that make sense?

47 minutes ago, Reinholt said:

Attempting to be realistic rather than idealistic:

1: Not every card needs to be viable. That kind of balance just isn't possible in a game this complicated.

2: Not every squadron needs to be viable, but I would suggest the iconic ones do need to be. If X-Wings, Y-Wings, and TIE fighters are not a common sight, something is wrong. If nobody uses the YV-666 other than Bossk, I am less concerned.

3: Every ship should be viable. Not necessarily every configuration of every ship, but the larger models should be used. By viable, I mean not totally irregular as a sight in the top of mid-major to major tournaments. To give some examples of ships I do not currently think meet this criteria: the Interdictor, the Pelta, and the Victory.

4: No massive over-representation. If 15/16 top fleets across worlds and the EU championship take 2+ flotillas and most are taking 3+, something is very wrong. Similarly, if 15/16 top fleets were two ISD plus other stuff I would say there was an equally bad problem.

5: No "win button" cards. If you never see a ship fielded without a title or if untitled versions are only the 2nd and 3rd of that ship (looking at you guys, Demo, Yavaris, and Admonition), that's bad. If one commander or squadron dominates the top tables, that's bad.

So for me, what I am asking for is not a huge amount of macro-level sameness, that at least the ships show up in a decent variety. I would be fine with FFG straight up errata-ing cards after each worlds season and having a pack of new cards, for instance, because again (to be realistic) this is complicated and will have to be an iterative project.

What I do not want is counter cards to the current hot stuff that just leads to band aids piled on band aids on a severed head and a constantly broken meta that has one dominant solution each season.

Does that make sense?

On number five: Rieekan is that commander.

1 hour ago, Reinholt said:

Attempting to be realistic rather than idealistic:

1: Not every card needs to be viable. That kind of balance just isn't possible in a game this complicated.

2: Not every squadron needs to be viable, but I would suggest the iconic ones do need to be. If X-Wings, Y-Wings, and TIE fighters are not a common sight, something is wrong. If nobody uses the YV-666 other than Bossk, I am less concerned.

3: Every ship should be viable. Not necessarily every configuration of every ship, but the larger models should be used. By viable, I mean not totally irregular as a sight in the top of mid-major to major tournaments. To give some examples of ships I do not currently think meet this criteria: the Interdictor, the Pelta, and the Victory.

4: No massive over-representation. If 15/16 top fleets across worlds and the EU championship take 2+ flotillas and most are taking 3+, something is very wrong. Similarly, if 15/16 top fleets were two ISD plus other stuff I would say there was an equally bad problem.

5: No "win button" cards. If you never see a ship fielded without a title or if untitled versions are only the 2nd and 3rd of that ship (looking at you guys, Demo, Yavaris, and Admonition), that's bad. If one commander or squadron dominates the top tables, that's bad.

So for me, what I am asking for is not a huge amount of macro-level sameness, that at least the ships show up in a decent variety. I would be fine with FFG straight up errata-ing cards after each worlds season and having a pack of new cards, for instance, because again (to be realistic) this is complicated and will have to be an iterative project.

What I do not want is counter cards to the current hot stuff that just leads to band aids piled on band aids on a severed head and a constantly broken meta that has one dominant solution each season.

Addressing the last parts first (the stuff after the numbers): That IS how FFG fixes things, most of the time. Netrunner for the longest time had cards that were counters to other cards, and then counters to some of the counters. By giving you choices, they let you choose/your meta choose what you want to play with. I understand your complaints (and I'll get to them in a second), but just gotta disappoint you and say that's not how FFG generally seems to roll, sadly or not sadly. By bringing new stuff in, though, the old stuff DOES get more viable.

1) Fair enough. And some of those offensive retrofits are just offensive to take, a yuk yuk yuk.

2) I'd argue that they all are, in some number. Feel free to disagree with me, but I see TIEs all the time. Biggs and the X-wing blob is still a thing, JJ won with Y wings, B-wings are deadly, A-wings are still great, TIE bombers still have Rhymer, etc.

3) Interdictor: I think if people (not directed at you, thats a general PEOPLE) were willing to try 4 ship fleets, possibly in their own meta, it might be more viable. I liked the thread from a few days ago where @Plagueis had a 99 point one. If I ever Imped..... Pelta: Shields to Max is about to get super viable with a swarm of hammerheads, and all fighters is still pretty dang good pushing b wings, of course. As for Vics, External Racks/DCaps means those are coming back even more than when Jerry showed up and brought them back. I'm interested to know what the VSD amount was in a wave 5 tournament scene, and i DO think that with external racks and boarding engineers vic-1s are viable. 2s, too, if you build em slightly differently. But they're good.

4) I disagree somewhat with this. Flotillas were intended to fix activation issues; the articles that have been linked previously showed that FFG wanted people taking these. The Rebel one itself states you should have 1-3 in fleets. Is there a problem when every fleet has 3? THAT I will agree with. But if every fleet has a flotilla? I don't mind that. And I think that with the quasar and hammerhead coming out that's going to go down. You can still push 2 squadrons with a flotilla, yes. Or you can push 6 with a quasar, and 6 TIEs can kill a LOT, especially if they're helping to spend your opponent's defense tokens too! Is there a problem with every fleet taking 3+ flotillas? Yeah, I can agree on that. But that's really another topic on fighting against 3 flotillas and dealing with that (that i dont want to get into)

5) I hesitantly disagree here. Yes, everyone takes those titles, but they aren't auto-wins, you still need to roll the dice. Does the fact that the title shows up in most lists crack the verisimilitude of Star Wars and fleet battles? Yeah I can agree. Short of getting MORE titles (which i know we all would love!) somehow (CC 2: title boogaloo?), i don't really have a solution there. It's kinda like how you CAN build an Imp bomber list without Rhymer. It's DOABLE, but not really something I would do. It does SO much, and because it's not just pushing spaceships around but also a game that FFG wants people to play.... I see why they're all in there and i can understand if FFG doesn't do anything about it. The @$$hole answer is "git gud at killing them, scrub," but a) that helps no one and b) that wasn't really your complaint, so there's reason to go down that path. As for Commander, let's see what wave 6 brings for fighting Rieekan and all? I realize that's my common answer, but with workable VSDs, a quasar that can launch 6 TIEs, etc etc, we need to see what the new stuff brings before we can get anywhere I think.

Here are a few general principles to follow. Health of a meta is obviously a gradual scale, and I think any "unhealthy" meta properties will be exaggerated in small groups of players and at the top levels of competitive play.

You want a meta to be as diverse as possible. Few things should be auto includes and few things should be totally unusable. This is where most of meta discussions focus. This is easy to measure. When almost every list at words is a rebel list flown by Reiken it is pretty obvious. But diversity is the goal meta assessment should be judged against that. For example, and an Imperial player I find the abundance of Flotillas have increased the variety of fleets even though these fleets tend to almost always have flotillas. The presence of flotillas have made large ships like Star Destroyers and MC80s (both types) more viable, and so even though we see flotillas in almost all lists, we still see a wider variety of competitive lists now that we have flotillas.

You also want a meta to be dynamic. Rhymer Balls used to dominate the meta, they don't anymore. It can't compete with Yavaris, Reiken, Aces. And truth be told, Rhymer balls were vulnerable to Reiken. This is a different kind of diversity a diversity over time.

You want your meta to be full of counters. Sort of like a Rock/Paper/Scisors game, if everyone is playing Rock and Paper lists, Paper is going to appear to be strong, but if there are lists that work like scissors that not only beat paper but also something that is vulnerable to rock (the type of lists that was previously not doing well). This is more important at higher levels of play. But if a game is set up like this where everything has a counter and nothing counters everthing, you should be able to fly counter to the most popular list and not just win despite it, but win because of it (if you are good enough)

Lastly I think you would want your meta focused at the top tiers of play. Let's be honest. I am never going to worlds. so reading what worked well there is an interesting read, but in some ways if what is happening at worlds isn't happening in your local scene it isn't a big deal. I went to a store championship

Things that I don't think are bad enough to call the meta bad. Or Meta elements that make the game bad. I would like to state first that these are of course my opinions. If your definition of a good game is a game where you can be allowed to play VSDs and have the most competitive lists or a game where you don't have to fly fighters, or a game where strategy isn't dictated by an economy of ship activations (this isn't so much a meta thing as it is a game design element) or a game with "no meta at all", if that is what you need for this game to be fun for you, then so be it. This game probably won't be fun for you. I try some other games (though I can not imagine a game with list building where you are not going to have a meta).

I think is a game where we accept that there is going to be a meta, then as long as we have overall diversity is not overly hampered. I am okay with one or two ships that aren't really used that much. I am okay with a given upgrade slot not using four or five of the upgrade cards. I'm okay if certain upgrades are really common on certain ships. As long as the total different kinds lists I face is still pretty varied.

8 hours ago, Reinholt said:

Attempting to be realistic rather than idealistic:

5: No "win button" cards. If you never see a ship fielded without a title or if untitled versions are only the 2nd and 3rd of that ship (looking at you guys, Demo, Yavaris, and Admonition), that's bad. If one commander or squadron dominates the top tables, that's bad.

Does that make sense?

These all make sense to me. On the "never without X title" ships, I'm not entirely sold on it. If we never saw Nebs without Yavaris, is that because Nebs are too weak, Yavaris is too strong, or both? I guess both are problems in their own way...

(Personal opinion: Nebs are too weak, Yavaris is fine, Rieekan+Yavaris is too strong. 32/41 fleets with a Nebulon had Yavaris, Neb fleets without Yavaris ended up in the bottom quarter twice as often as expected (4 of 9), and never ended up in the top 4. Yavaris Non-Rieekan lists are clustered towards the center of the pack, getting to top & bottom about half as often as expected (2/15 for both top & bottom))

So, to comment on the "the best meta is no meta" or the "everything is viable"

These simply aren't interesting. If every option is equally viable, then lets just flip a coin to see who wins and push around toy ships for an hour. Having stronger and weaker elements is actually pretty healthy for any meta. If I'm building a list for a tournament or even just in general and my opponent could be fielding literally any combination, then I am not making educated list building decisions, I'm playing a crappy version of let's make deal where I'm making blind selections. Having archetypes that you can expect to show up with a few dark horse builds that are suboptimal, but could surprise you is the ideal meta for me and the one that I've seen most successful. You have known quantities to plan for, but there are also enough questions that there is no definitive correct answer.

An ideal meta should also have a number of archetypes that have at least a pseudo rock-paper-scissors relationship i.e. every archetype should have a counter archetype (ideally this results in a cyclical imbalance which puts the game in a semi-constant rotation of power archetypes, but that's very difficult to achieve). More importantly, it shouldn't actually be rock-paper-scissors, but rather, some of the drawbacks or limitations (not all of them most decidedly) should be correctable with skilled play.

That being said, the hyper-competitive and optimized archetype shouldn't absolutely blow non-competitive or suboptimal archetypes out of the water, but they should consistently win about 80-90% of the games against sub optimal lists. After all, what incentive is there to move forward in a game if a grab bag of crap has as much chance of winning as a finely tuned machine?

Lastly, this is Star Wars. Luke blew up the death star, the Executor got destroyed by some jackass a-wing pilot and most of the literature is about awesome fighter pilots being awesome. If you dislike squadrons and named squadrons, this is likely not the universe for you.

1 hour ago, MasterShake2 said:

Lastly, this is Star Wars. Luke blew up the death star, the Executor got destroyed by some jackass a-wing pilot and most of the literature is about awesome fighter pilots being awesome. If you dislike squadrons and named squadrons, this is likely not the universe for you.

Arvel Crynyd, i say without having to look it up. Do I win anything? Where's my "best nerd" trophy?

Ships can be better than other ships, upgrades can be better than upgrades, but I think we run into trouble with whole builds that dominate.

For example, every one knows that demolished with Ordenance Experts, Assault Proton Torpedoes and Engine techs is a really great ship. If you go to a tournament you are almost guaranteed to see at least one, maybe a few. But that is stlll a pretty small part of the list. What is the the rest of he list, it could be just about anything. So Demo isn't really a problem for the meta. DemSU on the other hand wasn't just a single good ship it was a whole build that just seemed to be better than everything else. Seeing that all day long at a tournament just isn't that much fun.

This is similar to what Baltanok said. Reiken, Yavaris, and Rebel Aces are not by themselves a problem for the meta. But when they come together into a single "best" build then there is no real room for much veriety within these lists.

This is why I don't see Flotillas to be a problem, sure everyone is taking flotillas, but what is the rest of there list. There is a ton of veriety. There isn't one flotilla build that is dominating the meta it is just a dominance of them in lots of different build.

Not every card and ship MUST be balanced for tournament play. Some cards and ships might be more useful in campaign play or stand alone scenarios.

Any game of this complexity will ALWAYS find some min/max combination better than others which will change over time as new stuff get released. I think this is unavoidable as things go, especially in tournaments when you are restricted to a certain point limit. In games where point limits vary or perhaps not even equal then balance of cards and ships is more fluent. If you play a 1000p game then some cards (or combinations) that seem useless in a 400p game will suddenly become more desirable.

In a healthy meta, we see the following in Armada and most of these in any miniatures game system:

All playable factions are represented evenly (or nearly evenly) in the top levels of competition

All ships or at least ship archetypes can be viable in competition (combat, support, carriers) for both sides and incorporating most or all models

Varying degrees of squadron support are viable in competition ranging from zero squadrons to maximum squadrons, for both sides and incorporating most or all models

List building trends favor a diverse number of ways to play in competition

Casual games and competition games are separated primarily by skill level, not list design